Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#471

Post by account42 »

lxgr wrote: post #325
stogot wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat

The ones using declarative blocking (like everything compatible with Safari or newer Manifest V3 web extensions for Chrome and Firefox) don't need access to your browsing context. They're not as powerful as the ones that are able to inject content into visited pages or programmatically inspect and block/alter HTTP requests, but personally I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the reasons you mentioned. Chrome/Google…

It really is not a reasonable tradeoff because it effectively freezes the tools the blockers have in the ongoing arms race while the advertisers are able to adopt new tricks. Which is also why advertising companies (which includes all major browser makers) would like to pass it off a reasonable tradeoff.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#472

Post by account42 »

paganel wrote: post #186
dartharva wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.

It can go the other way, too. I’m a computer programmer and I don’t use an ad-blocker, one of the reasons being that the presence of add is a very good indicator of websites that I should avoid. That strategy makes me actuality consume less content on the web, which I find as a big plus, and that’s because the great majority of today’s websites are filled with ads. Related, the same goes for TV, where I don’t try to…

That's not a very useful approach unless you go full Ted Kaczynski and disconnect entirely. For those of us living in a society, not seing ads when vising websites you effectively have to visit to do that is the preferable option.

Nothing about an ad blocker stops you from limiting your exposure to ad-supported media but it makes it more bearable in the cases where avoiding it would be even worse.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#473

Post by account42 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #237
immibis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a new account, they'll only ban that one. I've been permanently banned from Reddit for really dumb reasons more times than I can count. The first time, I was sad. Now, I know it's a war between users and admins, and an individual account isn't worth very much.

Reddit bans are one thing, but your Gmail/Google Drive account getting banned? Not worth it, not over fucking Youtube ads. Remember, you don't have any recourse against Google bans.

Seems like the better solution would be to get off Gmail and Google Drive if you are otherwise unable to manage that risk. Having your digital life depend on the whims of some company with a TOS that boils down to "we can do whatever we want and you have no recourse" is irresponsible. Watching youtube without ads is hardly the biggest risk factor here.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#474

Post by account42 »

beretguy wrote: post #265
rustcleaner wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those friends are why I own AAPL. Limit buy order for one more share of AAPL added to my IB before posting!

The reason I use iPhone is because it's not a Google product. Coincidentally, iPhone is the only realistic alternative.

Do you really think it mattered whether the people in Jonestown drank Kool Aid or Flavour Aid? What matters is the poison and both Apple and Google ship plenty of it.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#475

Post by KetoManx64 »

cellularmitosis wrote: post #458
spacebanana7 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weakly worse to trust your OS + Browser + third party, than just OS + Browser. Moreover, small projects can be purchased more easily. See PIA. Users need to stay updated about ownership changes. It might be viable for us, but not for everyone.

Uh oh. What do I need to know about PIA and do I need to cancel my subscription?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21679682

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#476

Post by KetoManx64 »

Lvl999Noob wrote: post #257
stogot wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you missed it: theyre talking about extensions having access to portals where no ads exist

I am pretty sure most extensions (or at least ublock) can be set to stay off on specific websites? The extension can have an extra list of known safe sites that don't have ads where the extension stays off by default (should still be turn on-able because the list might be outdated).

In uBlock's case, when you first install it on Firefox you are peomoted to give it permission to "Access data for all websites that you visit". Even if you disable adblocking on a specific website Unlock still has access to it and can see it.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#477

Post by account42 »

ruthmarx wrote: post #150
endgame wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have governments become more authoritarian? Judging by the various misinformation legislation they're rushing to adopt, yes. The free internet said too many things that powerful people didn't like. An Australian example: https://x.com/SenatorRennick/status/1834455727764869593#m

Australia is an especially bad country in this regard.

It's hardly the only especially bad country though. At this point the entire western world is pushing for it (and Russia/China are already one and two steps ahead respectively).

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#478

Post by account42 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #388
ruthmarx wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm already annoyed I have to wipe my devices whenever I travel there or risk a $5000 fine and maybe jail time if they want the password and I don't give it up. Australia has to be the least free country in the anglosphere.

What? The US has been pulling this crap since 9/11, so I'm not sure what you're going on about IRT the Anglo-Sphere. The US only has privacy rights for Americans. As a non-citizen traveler, they routinely belittle, humiliate, and violate such privacy, demanding access to people's phones at risk of detention (or at best being sent back home) being exactly one of the things they do. Ask almost any Canadian what they th…

> And likely won't even do that anymore if Nov 5 goes to Trump

Lol you post was quite reasonable until that reveal.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#479

Post by account42 »

immibis wrote: post #238
endgame wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have governments become more authoritarian? Judging by the various misinformation legislation they're rushing to adopt, yes. The free internet said too many things that powerful people didn't like. An Australian example: https://x.com/SenatorRennick/status/1834455727764869593#m

Misinformation is an actual problem, so I don't know what you expect the government to do about it. Nothing at all? We saw how that idea worked out in the USA.

I expect the government to enable people to think critically and make their own deicisions, primarily through adequate education.

Beyond that, no, "misinformation" is only a problem for those who want to control others.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#480

Post by account42 »

immibis wrote: post #324
philwelch wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a perfect world I would expect the government to stop deliberately spreading misinformation, but I know that isn’t realistic.

That wasn't the question.

You don't get to dictate the discussion no matter how inconvenient that may be, just like the government doesn't get to dictate the truth.
Post reply on HN